LSEG · 2024
Digital MarketsInfrastructure.
Designing a two-sided platform connecting fund managers and investors — under regulatory constraints that shaped almost every screen.
NDA Restricted
DMI platform screens
LSEG · 2024
Designing a two-sided platform connecting fund managers and investors — under regulatory constraints that shaped almost every screen.
01 Overview
Digital Markets Infrastructure (DMI) connects fund managers and investors through a single digital environment. Built in partnership with Microsoft, DMI was designed to simplify access, improve distribution, and reduce operational friction across private markets and digital assets.
The platform needed to work for two fundamentally different kinds of user simultaneously — and do so within a regulatory framework that shaped the design of almost every feature we built.
02 The Challenge
DMI is a two-sided platform serving both investors and fund managers, with robust regulations in place to protect both parties. The design challenge wasn't just about making something that worked — it was about making something that worked for two completely different kinds of user, often looking at the same data from opposite angles, without ever appearing to favour one over the other.
"We had to always be managing both sides of the story — and doing so within a regulatory framework that left very little room for ambiguity."
The platform needed to surface all the information investors needed to make decisions about a fund and get to know a fund manager — without LSEG being seen to advise or hold an opinion.
Fund Manager Profiles needed to be engaging and customisable enough that fund managers would want to list and actively maintain their presence — without tipping into anything that could be read as LSEG endorsement.
Investors could find fund managers, but fund managers could also find investors. Both sides needed granular control over their own visibility — all within the strict bounds of the arranger licence.
03 The Users
Both user types came to the platform with legitimate, understandable needs — but those needs pointed in different directions. Understanding that tension early was what kept the design coherent throughout.
The Fund Manager
Supply side
The Investor
Demand side
04 Fund Manager Profiles
Fund Manager Profiles sit at the centre of an information density problem: fund managers own information they're legally required or commercially motivated to disclose, and investors need enough of it to make an informed decision. But a profile that reads like a spreadsheet prevents meaningful engagement, and blocks the relationship-building that actually drives the business.
"A profile that reads like a spreadsheet prevents the relationship-building that actually drives the business."
Product wanted the design phase to start immediately, aiming to hit as many milestones early or on time as possible. I always encourage rapid prototyping and rapid failure in my teams, but I also wanted to protect against unnecessary rework for design and engineering further downstream. So we started with empathy and wireframing workshops.
No one on our team was an investor or a fund manager, so our empathy could only reach so far. I pushed hard for the Solutions team and Product — who both had close relationships with prospective users — to set up design-exploration sessions so we could go beyond assumption. In the meantime, we got moving on initial wireframes and journey structures, then built these into hi-fi screens to bring in front of prospective users.
Our first pass at what we'd internally called "Favourite Funds" landed flat. When we asked users directly, "Is this something you feel is missing from other platforms you use?", they were polite but visibly unconvinced. The framing was too retail, not tuned to how they actually worked.
The follow-up question opened up an engaged dialogue: "What process flows do you work with regularly that make having lists or groupings of funds most useful to you?"
"We'd focus more on short and long listing funds than favouriting them per se. We'd take that data to other areas of the business and to client meetings."
From there we nailed down specifics fast. A limit of 5 funds for a short list and 10 for a long list immediately gave confirmation and guidance for the design. We didn't need to cater for 20+ funds in a comparison. Custom categories, and clarity around which information needed to sit above the fold, helped build a picture of what the overall landing state of the main fund screen should look like and the purpose it was serving.
We reviewed existing Fund Fact Sheets, mapped their informational hierarchy, and workshopped how to present the same data in a way that felt considered rather than collated.
We prioritised the highest-signal information above the fold, keeping everything else a scroll away within a tab component — giving a scroll-free data navigation experience without overwhelming the initial view.
I pushed back on this wording — it is vague, unfamiliar, and uninformative for most users. However, we were on a directive from the FCA and our legal teams to specifically use this wording. The regulatory constraint won, and the design accommodated it as clearly as possible.
We settled on a mainly card-based layout to maintain visual harmony and calm. Only one data table per section or tab to prevent data overwhelm, and a consistent icon set that had purpose and didn't interfere with the fund manager's branding. The profile screens needed to look like LSEG's DMI platform, without overshadowing the fund manager itself.
05 The Export Challenge
A recurring requirement across both investor and fund manager journeys was the ability to export data to .csv, bridging the polished in-platform experience with the spreadsheet-based workflows both sides still relied on day to day.
Investors wanted to pull fund comparison data into their own due-diligence macros and data processing tools. The exported sheets had to be as filterable, flexible, and functional as the spreadsheets they were used to. The hierarchy of data on screen had to match the hierarchy of data in the sheet, so users could mentally map where something they'd seen on screen would live once exported.
"Was the data on screen humanised or machine-readable by default? It opened up a question with implications for every field on the platform."
Every field on screen needed a clean, exportable counterpart. After discussions with Engineering and Legal, we decided to humanise the data on screen and create a machine-readable counterpart for the .csv export.
We looked at how the same data was presented in the other platforms and tools users already worked in day to day, and let that steer expectations — balanced against engineering's ticket load and Day 1 vs. Day 2+ priorities.
LSEG can't be seen to hold a position on any given fund. We couldn't use green for a fund that had risen, red for a decline — that reads as a value judgement. All fund movement indicators had to exist in the same neutral colour, with directional arrows as the only visual cue.
06 Constraints & Process
An FCA firm holding only the Arranging Deals in Investments permission operates strictly as an intermediary. Two restrictions in particular shaped almost every screen on this platform.
Without a separate "Advising on Investments" permission, we could not give personal investment recommendations. The platform could surface facts and comparisons, but could never rank, score, or imply a fund was a good or bad choice.
We couldn't buy or sell investments using LSEG's own balance sheet or market-make. DMI's role was to connect and inform — never to hold a stake in the outcome. Almost every feature that could nudge a user toward a specific fund had to be redesigned to present information neutrally.
Some fund managers wanted full autonomy over how their data was presented, what to include, what to leave out, and in some cases more expansive design and branding options. Although we could see the value in this, we had to maintain a consistent user journey to build visual muscle memory for our users, and ensure we were treating all customers fairly.
On the other side, investors wanted access to all the fund information without ever having to reveal themselves to the fund manager. But fund managers didn't want all of their fund data to be public knowledge either. We had to treat both sides with fairness and equal compromise where needed.
The age-old balancing act. We had to balance delivery milestones and roadmap against designing a high-quality experience, prioritising Day 1 and Day 2-and-beyond features and enhancements. With any grassroots platform like this, there's always scope creep, and leadership will always want to see a product with as many features as quickly as possible, even at the cost of quality.
I manage this as best I can by always speaking up for user experience and championing our users in meetings, no matter who is in the room — bringing meaningful justifications and explanations to the table instead of open-ended "what about the customers?" It's important to get leadership on board and bring them with you, instead of criticising and leaving them behind.
07 Reflection
If I were starting DMI again, I'd push to engage compliance and legal earlier, and push UX even further to the left. The roadmaps were built with features that had been prioritised in loose discussions with prospective users — we need that UX voice in those meetings and in those rooms, to see a gap in the wall and keep digging to find the value behind it.
I'd question the conversations and decisions that had led to features being prioritised, and ask further clarifying questions to make sure the features we were building were truly fit for purpose. In the words of Anthony J. D'Angelo: you don't reinvent the wheel, just realign it.
"You don't reinvent the wheel, just realign it."
Anthony J. D'Angelo
Digital Securities Depository
The learnings from DMI are being carried directly into the ground-up design of the Digital Securities Depository (DSD) — LSEG's next major platform, covering all user journeys from scratch. Launching September 2026.